Diversity of National Response: Zimbabwe and Zambia

By Justin Baker, Matthew Guevara, Christian Peratsakis, and Milad Pournik

This chapter explores the background of natural hazards and institutional capacity to respond to those hazards in Zimbabwe and Zambia.⁵⁶³ Moreover, a socio-economic background for each country is presented for each country. Seven different broad hypotheses are analyzed, including sub-hypotheses.

While Zambia is almost twice as big as Zimbabwe and has a GDP of four times as large, the countries share much in common (see Table 25).⁵⁶⁴

Table 25. Comparisons between Zimbabwe and Zambia

Measure Zimbabwe Zambia

Geographic

Area (sq km) 390,757 752,618

Provinces 8 provinces 9 provinces

Demographic

Population (2011) 12,084,304 13,881,336

Rural Population (2009) 62% 64%

Economic

GDP (2010) $5.46 billion $20.04 billion

Per Capita $500 $1,500

By sector

Agriculture: 19.8% 21.5%

Industry: 24.4% 34.5%

Services: 55.7% 44.1%

Human Development

2011 HDI Rank 169/169 150/169

Life expectancy 47 years 47.3 years

Both countries were a part of the British colony called Rhodesia and have English as an official language.

They share a long border, the Zambezi River, Victoria Falls, and the impressive Kariba Dam. They also face similar natural hazards – mainly floods and droughts. Despite the many similarities, in terms of political structures and DRM mechanisms, Zimbabwe and Zambia are more different than they are similar. Zambia has adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action and subsequently developed a National Adaptation Plan for Action (NAPA). Zimbabwe has not done likewise, though it has based some of its DRM policy on Hyogo priorities. In Zambia, the main body in charge of governmental response to disasters is situated in the Office of the President, whereas the corresponding body in Zimbabwe is housed within the Ministry of Local Government. While each country has its strengths and weaknesses, the overall capacities to respond to natural hazards are not the same across the two countries.

Zimbabwe and Zambia are typically spared from colossal natural hazards. While they both face droughts and floods – more frequent now than a few decades ago – the scale of these hazards is relatively limited.

Instead, it is the socio-economic conditions of these countries, influenced by government policies, which have a strong effect on the vulnerability of local populations. This suggests that a context of strong institutional capacity can make a significant difference as these countries respond to the natural shocks

that threaten them. High vulnerability in both countries means that even the slightest hazard can pose a significant risk to local livelihoods. Yet, it is for this very reason that DRR and DRM are especially important.

This does not imply that mitigation is a futile effort; in both countries many actors work to protect the environment against unnecessary damage. Nevertheless, neither of these countries is threatened by natural hazards to a degree that will cause systemic failure of response mechanisms. Thus, the greatest effects can be achieved by focusing on reducing vulnerabilities through increased resilience. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah and U.K. Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell affirmed this when they claimed that, “while we can’t prevent drought, we can prevent food crises.”⁵⁶⁵ Herein lies the tragedy and hope - both countries are highly vulnerable but there is much scope to reduce this vulnerability.

Both Zambia and Zimbabwe have pressing development needs that result in precious few tangible resources being dedicated to DRR or DRM on their own behalf. Comparatively though, Zambia’s economic prosperity, when compared to Zimbabwe, is one key reason that it has devoted relatively more resources towards DRR and DRM. Political underdevelopment in Zimbabwe is a serious cause for underinvestment in preparedness spending and lack of embrace of DRR as a national priority. This is in stark contrast to Zambia where DRR is largely a top-down initiative. Finally, in Zimbabwe there are more efforts to promote a culture of safety and resilience given that it is seen as a cost-effective way of strengthening capacity to prepare for and respond to natural hazards.

Based on this analysis, external actors should work with the government of Zimbabwe especially to complement rather than substitute for its work on DRR and DRM. Additionally, governments and external actors should harness the energy and intellect of civil society to cement a culture of climate change awareness throughout both countries. Finally, by decentralizing power and resources both countries can advance the coverage and efficacy of DRR and DRM spending.

ZIMBABWE

Background on Natural Hazards

Interviews highlighted that flooding and drought are the two most important types of hazards in Zimbabwe.

For this reason, this analysis focuses exclusively on these natural hazards in the country.

Flooding

In 2000, cyclone Eline swept across the Indian Ocean, over Madagascar, and on to Mozambique and then eastern Zimbabwe. The floods were some of the worst in recent history and the situation was declared a national disaster. Dams and bridges were destroyed and 250,000 people were left homeless. According to the Civil Protection Unit, a total of 2.7 million people were affected in the eastern and southern portions of the country.⁵⁶⁶ While cyclone Eline was an anomalous event, it illustrates the scope of rainfall-induced disasters in the country, and “highlighted the significance of disaster management at community level.”⁵⁶⁷ Without effective DRR strategies, Zimbabwe will remain unready for another cyclone of this magnitude.

Cyclone Eline exemplifies one of the types of flooding disasters faced by Zimbabwe; the other is seasonal, localized heavy rainfall that causes flash floods and can cause rivers to overflow.⁵⁶⁸ Seasonal flooding is the more common natural hazard, though the frequency of cyclones has increased in recent years.

The general pattern of rain in Zimbabwe has traditionally been two distinct seasons: rains in October and November, a drier period in December, and rains again in January and February. However, this pattern is changing, making for more unpredictability and causing more erratic flooding patterns. The increasingly variable nature of the seasonal floods is perhaps the most important issue for understanding Zimbabwe’s natural hazards. The country is currently struggling with ‘climate variability’ in a marked way.

This inconsistency is bringing rain at irregular intervals, and in parts of the country this includes flooding.

Beyond flooding, this rainfall variability also has critical effects on national food security, as the country has traditionally relied on domestically produced maize. Large-scale commercial farmers reinforced this view, citing unpredictable rainy seasons, which can leave crops flooded in one year and too dry the next, noting that the variability has increased markedly in recent years.

The parts of the country most vulnerable to flooding are Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland North provinces, particularly within the Zambezi river basin, which forms the nation’s northern border with Zambia. Parts of the valley, which houses the large Zambezi River and prominent Kariba dam, flood nearly every year with varying effect.⁵⁶⁹ The regulation of this massive dam is also important in any discussion of flooding in the Zambezi Basin. In the far northeast, the Muzarabani District is particularly vulnerable to seasonal flooding. This region has been flooded on several occasions during the previous decade.

The frequency of these floods, rather than their magnitude, makes recovery and long-term preparedness challenging. Furthermore, as a consequence of powerful storm systems that move across the country during the rainy season, flash flooding around the country can lead to local damage and loss of lives and property.

On a comparative basis, Zimbabwe does not feature in terms of deaths or numbers affected (see Table 26). Only approximately 5,000 people are exposed to flooding on a continual basis, ranking 108 out of 162 countries.⁵⁷⁰ However, when this exposure is considered in context of the general vulnerability of the country, particularly in the Zambezi Valley, the impact of flooding becomes much more severe.

Drought

Droughts are not new to Zimbabwe, but they have become more numerous and intense in recent years.

A leader of the Coping with Drought Project funded by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) sees the problem as one of frequency rather than magnitude. He argues that the frequency of droughts does not give people a chance to fully recover before occurrence of the next one. This phenomenon of relatively small magnitude but high frequency hazards is echoed by an OCHA official who elaborates that:

We must take note here that small, but recurrent, disasters often cause more destruction cumulatively than some of the large scale disasters that tend to draw the attention of the international media. Due to the compounded nature of risks in the region, any small scale disaster is likely to cause high levels of damage—since vulnerability is so exacerbated by the recurrent nature of disasters, which give communities little to no time to recover in between shocks.⁵⁷¹

Drought has its greatest impact on water supplies. The importance of agriculture in Zimbabwe is hard to overstate and it is imperative to have in mind when thinking about drought as a hazard. This is especially significant given the reliance of Zimbabwean farmers on rain-fed agriculture.

PreventionWeb cites six of the ten worst disasters in Zimbabwe in terms of affected people between 1980 and 2010 to be droughts.⁵⁷² As shown in Table 26, three of the six occurred after the turn of the century.

Droughts in particular and erratic rainfall in general make farming difficult. Without accurate, timely, and reliable information, farmers are confused and uncertain whether to plant or defer planting. Reports by the UN, IMF, and U.S. Department of Agriculture have argued that Zimbabwe’s devastating food shortages since 2000 are largely attributable to “severe drought” – a line that President Mugabe and other government officials have only been too happy to parrot. However, the reports in question relied either on unreliable, secondhand information or on data from a small sample of rainfall stations.⁵⁷³ Spatially, the regions in the southwest are the most prone to drought although it occurs in most outer areas of Zimbabwe. The central region is known as the ‘breadbasket’ and is not typically threatened by drought.

Craig Richardson highlights the importance of rainfall to the Zimbabwean economy.⁵⁷⁴ The correlation between rainfall and GDP growth is striking. Remarkably though, this relationship became sharply

disconnected in the late 1990s. For example, despite above average rainfall in 2000, the country experienced negative growth. This highlights the importance of institutional capacity in determining the overall risks posed by droughts.

Table 26. Recent History of Major Natural Disasters in Zimbabwe

Year Type⁵⁷⁵ Location Affected

1982 Drought Regional 700,000

1991 Drought Regional 5,000,000

1996 Epidemic Regional 500,000

1998 Drought Regional 55,000

2000 Flood Northeast, Zambezi Valley 266,000

2001 Drought Regional 6,000,000

2001 Flood Northeast, Muzarabani District 30,000

2007 Drought Regional ^2,100,000

2008 Epidemic Nationwide, concentrations in Harare and Bulawayo 98,349

2010 Drought Regional 1,680,000

Source: EM-DAT